Blasphemous cartoons

Rhisiart

Rhisiart

Registered
Perhaps the Islamic nations are over-reacting, but for the sake of sanity, why would you go out of your way to disrepect someone else's religion?

What do you gain by doing this? The man who designed these stupid cartoons has to be a complete ass. And for that matter, also the editors that reprinted them.

This so-called freedom of press is hypocritical. The press can be silenced by any European government if pressure is put on them when it suits Western politicians.

It is rare for me to support the British press (normally the gutter press of the world), but at least they had the good sense to not copy the Danes and French. I note the American press are also keeping a low profile.

We deplore anti-semitism. We should also deplore anti-Islamism.
 
I really think you're missing at least some of the discussion. Its pretty acceptable to parody christianity, why is Islam any different? The Danish paper has publicly said that they wish they hadn't published them given the general reaction, but that they were trying to contribute to a debate on freedom of speech (rather than freedom of the press), and commenting on the current sensitivities around Islamic issues. Freedom of the press is one thing, but if you are saying that European governments can (and you seem to imply in some way should) silence people for voicing their opinions (since I don't think you can argue this was any sort of incitement) then personally i think you have a view of the world i think we should be fighting against not supporting.

I may well come back to this, but its 4am and i need sleep, but i felt the need to give some reply first.

ora
 
I can't recall ever seeing Christianity parodied in such an "outsider's" way. If these were cartoons of Jesus torturing prisoners, you can bet there'd be a huge outcry.

When I was reading about it in the paper today, I thought the rioters (for lack of a better word) needed to just grow up. Then they started describing some of the cartoons, and...well, they really are bad. It bothers me to no end when people project the radicalism of bin Laden to all of Islam. That's an incredibly closed-minded idea.

On the one hand, I don't believe in censorship. On the other hand, people shouldn't feel like they can do whatever the heck they want. They're pushing the limits just for the sake of pushing the limits here, and I don't think that's respectable.
 
I think it's rather a "bad timing". Currently there seem to be tensions between religious groups all around the world. If I got it right, those cartoons were actually published 3 months ago. Yet the reaction boosts now when the tensions are getting stronger and stronger. Sometimes I have the feeling that some powerful groups are throwing coal into light fire on purpose so it can go up in flames at the right time. It scares me.
 
OK, back again after some sleep :).

There are few issues here, both issues of fact and issues of opinions. On the fact side, there has been some misunderstanding on what was published. The paper had 12 images of the prophet Muhammad, if such things don't offend you you can see them here: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm . There were also three images that were being distributed by Danish Islamic groups that were far far more inflammatory, including very dark sexual imagery and use of Pig imagery that was clearly designed to enrage Muslim. These images were never published in Denmark, despite news sources such as the BBC thinking they had been and publishing one of them. It seems the people distributing these very nasty images were making a range of outrageous claims - from saying the Danish Queen said she hated Muslims, to having a support base of 200,000 Danish muslims (rather than 15,000). I found out about all this over the last _months_ that this has been going on because i share an apartment with a Danish guy, so i got to hear the on going coverage in the Danish press as well as the recent resurgence of feeling on this issue and the republishing in France. If you look at the images that _were_ published, while edgy they are also make fun of themselves: one image is of a muslim boy in front of a blackboard where he has written "Jyllands-Posten's [the paper's] journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs".

Its also important to understand something about Danish culture here. While in general one might say the nordic countries are very politically correct, the Danes are PC in an odd way. For instance, one of their most popular TV shows (as i hear) stars Dolph, a fascist hippo (man in a life size blue hippo suit) who believes the only true men in Europe are ones like Jean-Claude Van Damme, and the Berlucsoni would be perfect is he wasn't such a lazy southern European (and I've toned down those statements a bit for the board). In general, I have got the impression that Danish humor can be fairly non-PC because on some level its well understood that people are open minded and not bigoted. It took me a while though, and when my flatmate described some of Danish kids TV the first time i was fairly shocked, some of that stuff would have to be on at 1am in the UK if at all (for any Danes, the christmas show about the fisherman in Copenhagen and his son was what got me).

On the issues of perception and offense things get more complicated. Mikuro in some ways I do agree with you, we don't see so much 'outsider' criticism of Christianity, but thats because I live in western europe, a fairly christian-dominated area so its not exactly outsider, but for strong anti-chritian messages how about South Park (the devil and Saddam Hussein in a relationship, God is a strange animal thing who is best friends with the Budha) or the Kevin Smith film Dogma? On the other hand i don't think we should limit freedom of expression, and i think thats why these cartoons were published, to highlight how sensitive we have become of criticizing Islam, rather than just being published _in order_ to criticize Islam. Granted they did not have that effect, and the editors have expressed their regret for that, but this not mean they should be strung up, or Danish people threatened by Hamas etc. I don't feel able to come down too strongly on either side, but I do feel strongly that the kind of sentiments you guys have expressed come from a limited, over-PC-influenced view of the situation.

If you want to get theoretical about this, i would say it highlighted the modern failure of multiculturalism as a sociopolitical position, something i've seen widely discussed. This failure could be summarized as the fact that being tolerant of other cultures in a country is of course positive, but that we have exercised tolerance in a way that has actually led to ghettoisation by not encouraging integration between different cultures. I've seen this extensively in the UK, from separation of cultures (and here Islam is unusual as the religion and culture seem so intertwined by western standards) based on economic status leading to separation along racial lines in a way which made people feel deeply resentful. I also had a very interesting discussion with a French woman, of admittedly right wing economic views, on the recent riots in France. She claimed that these riots, which seemed to be going along racial lines in some way, showed a real problem in French culture. She felt that earlier generations of immigrants to France who had been invite din to work had been better integrated, but that the second generation children of these immigrants found themselves in poverty and a racial minority, and that when the police stop to check your ID on every block its hard to not feel separated from society.

Ok, I wandered a bit off track their but it does relate here. These images, in my opinion anyway, were _not_ incitement. Edgy yes, perhaps inadvisable, but not meant to lead to racial or religious persecution. For that you can go to north london and find within not many meters Islamic people spouting fire and brimstone and death to the west, and British people (from the british national party) calling for racial purity of Britain (forgetting we are all a mix of romans, celts, saxons, vikings, normans etc etc). Both are reprehensible, but i don't feel this is the same situation. I also wonder why these cartoons, which were published in _september_ last year, were only causing the uproar now,and why the French paper chose to reprint them (I am less sure if their motives are real discussion or shifting more papers).

Urgh, enough for now or I'll be at this all day. I really don't want to offend anyone, i would just encourage looking at the situation in context and with as much information as possible, rather than to some extent being affected by a version of the media hyping that people are accusing the Danes, or rather this one paper, are doing.

[edit] Zammy you posted while i was composing this almost endless post ;). I agree with you, i can't say for certain if this situation has been used to support certain positions, but i think its a very valid question.
 
Thanks for taking the time to write that post, Ora. An interesting read.

I took a look at the cartoons you linked. I don't think they're anything to get too offended at, honestly. Some of them seem harmlessly amusing. Then again, religious fanatics (of all faiths) tend to not "get things", and I'm sure this would be exacerbated by the difference in culture. Considering how poorly fanatical American Christians react to even American humor, it's not surprising that some Muslims would be up in arms (er, I meant that figuratively) about this.

I've never seen Dogma, and I'm not a big South Park fan myself, but I just want to say that from what I've gathered, that type of humor is very different from what I previously thought these cartoons were (turns out most of them were not as bad as I thought, though). The thing with South Park is that their humor isn't really at odds with conventional Christian morals. So God's best friends with Buddha — so what? There's nothing wrong with the Buddha's messages even by Christian standards, so I don't see this as offensive or anti-Christian. I think it's just cute — even open-minded. And having the Devil in league with Saddam is practically politically correct at this point. If they had Jesus siding with Saddam, then I'm sure we'd have heard more about it, because that WOULD have been anti-Christian (or at the very least anti-"popular American Christianity").

Another key difference is that South Park is talking about the creators' own culture, and its audience shares that culture. Even if they or their viewers aren't Christian, they at least share a lot of that culture. So it's not like they're misrepresenting anything. That's what I meant when I referred to the "outsider's" perspective. I feel like some of these cartoonists misrepresenting something of which they have no honest understanding TO people who also have no honest understanding.


If these Muslims are demanding that nobody be allowed to draw the prophet Muhammad, then I think that's totally unreasonable. I'm sorry, but your religion should not dictate what I can do. There's way too much of that as it is.


As for the cartoons themselves, some don't seem like they're even trying to be offensive. I don't really "get" some of them myself, though, specifically the first one (what's that...thing...in the lower-right supposed to be? A camel? Is it significant? What's the point?) and of course the ones with foreign text. I thought the "we ran out of virgins" one was funny, but I can easily understand being upset by it if you don't "get" the humor. Humor is always a tricky business. (Heck, maybe my interpretation is more innocent than the actual artist's intent; it's impossible to say, really.)

The only reason I find any of this offensive is that they're almost validating the radicals' behavior as being in keeping with Islam, which it's not. It's the propagation of that idea that I think is offensive (and when done by Christians, very hypocritical). Some of these seem to be merely mocking the radicals, which I think is perfectly legit any way you look at it.


(I wonder if I can find subbed videos of Dolph the fascist hippo.....)
 
Ora, I disagree with your views on this issue, although of course I vigorously defend your right to have them.

In my opinion, the pictures were crass, insensitive and spiteful. I wouldn’t use the word ‘edgy’ to describe them. There were a clear attempt at incitement. Sure, the pictures seem like harmless fun to non-religous Danes, Brits or non-evangelical Americans, who easily dismiss them as some kind of satire, but I think Muslims have a right to feel insulted and a moral duty to express their disgust. However, any such response has to be reasonable and proportional.

Most religous people around the world - Islamic, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist and Hundu - live by the teachings of their Holy Books and seers. They deserve a modicum of respect and should not have to put up with cartoons mocking their faiths, however 'harmless' non-religous people believe these cartoons to be.

Equally, there are a minority of radical Muslims who are just as arrogant, fanatical and dangerous as radical Christians, Jews and Hindus. The papers in Denmark and France poked a stick in a hornet’s nest for a giggle knowing that it would incite extremists. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
 
Mikuro said:
On the one hand, I don't believe in censorship. On the other hand, people shouldn't feel like they can do whatever the heck they want. They're pushing the limits just for the sake of pushing the limits here, and I don't think that's respectable.
Click to expand...
I'm not commenting on the cartoons, but speech does not have to be respectable to be protected. In other words, it's the speech that we may not like that needs the most protection. Silencing others is one sure way to pave a path for others to silence you.

I said that I wasn't commenting on the cartoons, and I'm not, because I have not seen them, or even followed this story at all. I do, however, believe that all religions are open to criticism, and that people have a right to express their opinion of another's religion (I am especially critical of the Evangelical Christians in my own country, and was, in fact, raised Christian). I feel, more and more each day, that people of all religions tend to feel that they are entitled to not be offended, as if, simply because their beliefs are dear to them, others should choose their words carefully.

My point has been seen most recently here in the United States, where several school boards have decided that evolution is to be taught side-by-side with creationism. It's not that the school boards are doing this that scares me the most, it's that the politicians and media are afraid to express any view that might cause those who have certain religious beliefs to be offended. So I ask the question - why should someone like me, who has studied evolution and subscribes to the theory, worry that something I might say could offend someone who holds a particular religious belief? Would I be afforded the same luxury? Would those who want creationism - a purely religious theory - taught in public schools walk on the same egg shells for me that they expect me to for them? I think the answer is no, and I think it should be.

Should the paper have published the cartoons? Maybe not, simply because putting forward views that skew what is Islam is all about is simply bad journalism. The paper should not be silenced, or censored, however. The readers will decide, as they always do, what they will read. It is up to other outlets of journalism to call this thing what it is, and state the facts. People should be educated with the truth, and, when they are, this paper will either issue an apology or simply fade away.

You made the comment that, "people shouldn't feel like they can do whatever the heck they want". I respectfully disagree. We take the good with the bad, or we get nothing good at all.
 
Zammy-Sam said:
I think it's rather a "bad timing". Currently there seem to be tensions between religious groups all around the world. If I got it right, those cartoons were actually published 3 months ago. Yet the reaction boosts now when the tensions are getting stronger and stronger. Sometimes I have the feeling that some powerful groups are throwing coal into light fire on purpose so it can go up in flames at the right time. It scares me.
Click to expand...
You get that feeling because that's exactly what is happening, all around the world. Religion is the most polarizing issue in the world, and when people want to divide one group from another, they simply use religion.
 
rhisiart said:
They deserve a modicum of respect and should not have to put up with cartoons mocking their faiths, however 'harmless' non-religous people believe these cartoons to be.
Click to expand...
Why do they deserve to not have their faiths mocked? What if I were a person (and I will not say whether or not I am or am not) who believed that religion was nothing more than a drug designed to keep people in line throughout the centuries? What if I believed that those who believed in a god or gods were no different that those who believed that thunder was produced by angels bowling in heaven? What if I believed that those who believe in a higher power are no different than those who believed that the Earth was flat, or that it was the center of the universe?

Your response might be that 95% of the world believes in a higher power. My response to that would be "so what?" Does that mean that they are correct? All of Europe (the entire "known world" at the time) believed that the earth was flat at one point in time. For all their believing, it wasn't so.

I say all this to make the point that it doesn't matter what you or I believe. We are not entitled to have others walk on egg shells, sparing us criticism for our beliefs. I spare no one criticism for their political beliefs, and I spare them just as much for their religious beliefs.

You might call this showing someone "respect" for the beliefs that they hold. OK, fine. I might believe that welfare is wrong and should be done away with (I don't believe this at all, but I'll play devil's advocate here). If I were to tell you that, or something else that you disagreed with on principle, would you keep your mouth shut about it? Would you simply walk away? I wouldn't if you were to say the same to me. Respecting someone means respecting their right to have a particular view or belief. It does not mean giving that view or belief your personal respect. It does not mean that you watch what you say because you might offend someone, or hurt their feelings. In addition, starting wars or becoming enraged because someone hurt your feelings (and that's really what it is - a petty "you hurt my feelings" argument) is unacceptable and foolish.

Further, regarding the mocking of one's faith, I hear religious people talking about non-believers like they are common street trash on TV every day. What if not having a faith is, in itself, a faith? What if I choose to believe in no higher power? Will my quasi-faith be respected? I'll put it a different way: What if someone worships the devil? Will you ask that cartoons of the devil be pulled from papers? I doubt it, because no one likes the devil, right? That would make it OK in the minds of most people. If only a small group of people supports a particular view, the standard treatment is to pretend that they don't exist. The problem with religion is that the only people who respect your religion are the people who subscribe to it. We all say that we respect other religions, but what we really mean is that we respect someone's right to have whatever religion they desire. We don't really respect their views. If we did - if we walked on egg shells - there would be no debate in this world. There would still be one religion, and it wouldn't have anything to do with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or any other current major world religion.

You are owed only one thing as a human being, and that is to be left alone to do what makes you happy, so long as you are not hurting others. Anything outside of that is too much to ask and you are infringing on others.
 
dmetzcher said:
I'm not commenting on the cartoons, but speech does not have to be respectable to be protected. In other words, it's the speech that we may not like that needs the most protection. Silencing others is one sure way to pave a path for others to silence you.
Click to expand...
To clarify, I didn't mean that I think they shouldn't be allowed to say these things just because I don't think it's respectable. I'm against censorship, and I mean for everything else I say to be viewed in that light.

I do think it's unfortunate that they did say these things, though, and I frown upon them for it because I don't think their motives/methods are respectable. I don't think people should feel like it's okay to say anything, but that doesn't mean I think anyone should be able to stop them.

I feel the same way about a lot of mainstream TV pundits, too, even when the say PC things. I'm not a slave to political correctness.

Let me put it this way: If I'm walking down the street, I CAN say anything I want to anyone who passes by. That doesn't mean I should, and it doesn't mean I do. And if someone said outrageous things to me on the street, I probably wouldn't try to shut them up — but I WOULD think "god, what an @$$#*!&". I'd just leave it to the court of public opinion.

It's a matter of "the lesser of two evils". I don't like the "well what're ya gonna do about it?" attitude that people have when they're offensive merely for the sake of being offensive. But it would be even worse if you gave anyone the right to decide what's "legitimately" offensive and what's not. Everything can be offensive to someone, after all.


As for whether these cartoons are incitement, I don't think that was the intent.
 
If those protesting muslims are against free speech, why are they allowed to protest? ;) Really, just kidding here... I just want to say that I think it's quite healthy to be able to laugh about religion from the time to time. We *all* know there are different religions. Fanatically religious people are the _first_ to know that there are other beliefs than their own. Making fun of other people's beliefs has a long history (it's in the bible, too, btw., that episode I call the big "god show-off duel", where the christian god refuses to show its powers on demand), and I think we'd all get along better if we acted like this:

a) Try *not* to make fun of other people's beliefs, unless they're wrong. (I just _had_ to add that little bit, sorry...) ;)
b) If someone makes fun of your beliefs, try to see *why* he or she's doing it and try to _see_ the humourous aspects of your beliefs. It'll actually help you _strengthening_ your beliefs in my opinion. Unless _you're_ wrong, that is. ;)

So, come to think of it. I think both the press publishing such cartoons as well as the protesting muslims are both showing not enough humour and respect.
 
What I don't understand about this is how "Cartoon = Burn Buildings and Hurt People". To me that doesnt add up. My flag is burned just about every single day in other countries. That, in my opinion, is more inflamatory (excuse the pun) than a cartoon could ever be. But I don't go out and burn down consulates and embassies over it. Why? Because I have respect for other people's opinions. That is YOUR opinion, fine. I don't like it, but I won't freak out about it. Get mad, fine, but don't friggin hurt people in the process!!
 
dmetzcher said:
Why do they deserve to not have their faiths mocked?
Click to expand...
I just think it’s crass to mock someone's belief, whether that belief is based on religion or atheism. Disagree with them: yes of course because that's freedom of speech, but too take the piss is another matter.

dmetzcher said:
I hear religious people talking about non-believers like they are common street trash on TV every day.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do too and it sucks.

dmetzcher said:
You are owed only one thing as a human being, and that is to be left alone to do what makes you happy, so long as you are not hurting others.
Click to expand...
Mocking someone’s beliefs (religious or otherwise) is hurtful.

However, reacting to someone's lack of respect for your beliefs in a hysterical and disproportionate way suggests that your belief is just blind faith.

P.S. Interesting article on the BBC web site today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4685886.stm.
 
rhisiart said:
I just think it’s crass to mock someone's belief, whether that belief is based on religion or atheism. Disagree with them: yes of course because that's freedom of speech, but too take the piss is another matter.


Yes, I do too and it sucks.


Mocking someone’s beliefs (religious or otherwise) is hurtful.

However, reacting to someone's lack of respect for your beliefs in a hysterical and disproportionate way suggests that your belief is just blind faith.

P.S. Interesting article on the BBC web site today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4685886.stm.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you are saying here. I do not mock the faiths of others, but I just don't think that we should try to stop others from doing so. I choose not to do it because I think going around and hurting people is useless nonsens. I also tend to think that people of faith are people of faith for life. Changing people simply doesn't work. Arguing religion is like arguing about which flavor of ice cream is better.

Regarding your response to my statement about being left alone to live your life so long as you don't hurt others...
Mocking religion might be hurtful, but I was speaking about direct harassment, rather than expressing your views in a public forum, and not caring how those views affected the feelings of others. Lots of things are hurtful and still protected, as should they be. In a public forum, where many are in the discussion on both sides of an argument, I don't think that criticizing, or mocking someone else is something we should guard against. I can see it now, we start guarding against that, and every celebrity and politician suddenly wants protection. Religion is a thing, not a person. Mocking it might hurt others feelings, but that is life. It should still be protected.

In addition, I just don't think that believing something (especially something like religion, which has never once been proven factual), though it might be sacred to you, should be made to be sacred to others. In other words, you have a religion. It is not your race, sex, or your sexual orientation. It is something that you believe. It does not deserve the same protections from "mocking" that certain things, like the three that I listed, do.

I'll put it a different way:
"I am a right-wing Christian. I believe that gay marriage and abortion are terrible sins, and that everyone participating in either 'activity' will burn in hell. Hey! No mocking my faith! It hurts my feelings! To tell me that I am a blowhard without respect for your freedoms! Don't tell me that my 'religion' is wrong, or mock it in a cartoon!"

The above is an example that I see all the time. It's crap. They are wrong, I believe that they are wrong, then can either (1) keep their beliefs to themselves (and this means that I don't want to see any friggin' ads on TV during election season), or (2) shout their beliefs loud and proud, and enter into an argument with everyone else. Fine by me, but don't claim that you don't get to have your feelings hurt.

While I might not agree with the message of the cartoons, they do say something about the perception that many in Europe and the US have about Islam, given the fact that the religion has been hijacked by a growing number of lunatics bend on pushing their views onto everyone else.

I'm sorry, but you have not made a good enough argument for not mocking someone's religion.
 
http://joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/784.html

Mmm, to be honest, I'm not very happy with the behavior of those on either side of the debate (not in this forum, I hasten to add). I don't think anything was really gained by publishing cartoons that would strongly upset and offend people, and we need to remember the majority of Muslims are more moderate than we see on TV. I'm not happy with extremists immediately setting fire to embassies and making death threats, either. Having a freedom is one thing, but exercising it responsibly is another. I don't think the cartoons offered anything valuable (having seen them all) and they, in the process, got a lot of people very upset. Terrific.

Hey, this is quite brief, for me. ;)
 
Unfortunately I haven't had time to read all of the entries in this thread, so I'm not 100% sure that this hasn't been raised already.

The thing that amazes me most is the utter hypocrisy of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper in question. Some three years ago, they were offered a set of satirical cartoons of Christ on the cross, but refused to publish them on the grounds that it would be too offensive!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top